On 17/07/2012 15:20, Daniel James wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:
(there are actually some quite decent studies out there on SSDs now.

They've certainly got a lot better as the wear-levelling algorithms have
been refined (and debugged!).

The general thrust being that in the consumer space you can expect a
more than adequate life from them)

That's true ... though that's not to say that spinning rust isn't
better.

I'm still not using SSDs because:

1. I'm not concerned about the disk speeds of my HDD systems.
2. SSDs are still much more expensive than HDDs.
3. SSDs are not yet available with multi-terabyte capacities.

I will say that SSDs are attractive for notebook/netbook applications
where their relative immunity to shock damage may be important.

Yup, all those points are valid. I would only add that a reasonable way
to address them at this stage is by fitting both a SSD and conventional
drive. The SSD to give rapid boot, and application access, and the
conventional drive for its bulk data storage capability.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/